Censored Foreign Policy Stories
from the book
Seven Stories Press, 2004, paper
Censored Foreign Policy Stories of 2005
Michael Chossudovsky writes in the Global Research newsletter
about the coup in Haiti against Aristide in February 2004
The armed insurrection which contributed
to unseating President Aristide on February 29, 2004, was the
result of a carefully staged military-intelligence operation.
The rebel paramilitary army crossed the border from the Dominican
Republic in early February. It constitutes a well armed, trained,
and equipped paramilitary unit integrated by former members of
FRAPH, the "plain clothes" death squadrons, involved
in mass killings of civilians and political assassinations during
the CIA-sponsored 1991 military coup, which led to the overthrow
of the democratically elected government of Aristide. During the
military government (1991-1994), FRAPH was (unofficially) under
the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces. According to a 1996 U.N.
Human Rights Commission report, FRAPH had been supported by the
CBS anchor Dan Rather about reports on Bush's wars
It's an obscene comparison, but there
was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires
around people's necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear
is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire
of lack of patriotism put around your neck. It's that fear that
keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions
/ and to continue to bore in on the tough questions so often.
gain, I'm t humbled to say I do not except myself from this criticism.
High Uranium Levels Found in Troops and
Civilian populations in Afghanistan and
Iraq and occupying troops have been contaminated with astounding
levels of radioactive depleted and non-depleted uranium as a result
of post-9/1 1 United States' use of tons of uranium munitions.
Researchers say surrounding countries are bound to feel the effects
In 2003, scientists from the Uranium Medical
Research Center (UMRC) studied urine samples of Afghan civilians
and found that 100 percent of the samples taken had levels of
non-depleted uranium (NDU) 400 percent to 2,000 percent higher
than normal levels. The UMRC research team studied six sites,
two in Kabul and others in the Jalalabad area. The civilians were
tested four months after the attacks in Afghanistan by the United
States and its allies.
NDU is more radioactive than depleted
uranium (DU), which itself is charged with causing many cancers
and severe birth defects in the Iraqi population-especially children-over
the past 10 years. Four million pounds of radioactive uranium
was dropped on Iraq in 2003 alone. Uranium dust will be in the
bodies of our returning armed forces. Nine soldiers from the 442nd
Military Police serving in Iraq were tested for DU contamination
in December 2003. Conducted at the request of the Daily News,
as the U.S. government considers the cost of $1,000 per affected
soldier prohibitive, the test found that four of the nine men
were contaminated with high levels of DU, likely caused by inhaling
dust from depleted uranium shells fired by U.S. troops. Several
of the men had traces of another uranium isotope, U-236, which
is produced only in a nuclear reaction process.
Most American weapons (missiles, smart
bombs, dumb bombs, bullets, tank shells, cruise missiles, etc.)
contain high amounts of radioactive uranium. Depleted or non-depleted,
these types of weapons, on detonation, release a radioactive dust
which, when inhaled, goes into the body and stays there. It has
a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Basically, it's a permanently
available contaminant, distributed in the environment, where dust
storms or any water nearby can disperse it. Once ingested, it
releases subatomic particles that slice through DNA.
UMRC's field team found several hundred
Afghan civilians with acute symptoms of radiation poisoning along
with chronic symptoms of internal uranium contamination, including
congenital problems in newborns. Local civilians reported large,
dense dust clouds and smoke plumes rising from the point of impact,
an acrid smell, followed by burning of the nasal passages, throat,
and upper respiratory tract. Subjects in all locations presented
identical symptom profiles and chronologies. The victims reported
symptoms that included pain in the cervical column, upper shoulders,
and basal area of the skull; lower back/kidney pain; joint and
muscle weakness; sleeping difficulties; headaches; memory problems;
At the Uranium Weapons Conference held
October 2003 in Hamburg, Germany, independent scientists from
around the world testified to a huge increase in birth deformities
and cancers wherever NDU and DU had been used. Professor Katsuma
Yagasaki, a scientist at the Ryukyus University, Okinawa, calculated
that the 800 tons of DU used in Afghanistan is the radioactive
equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The amount of DU used in
Iraq is equivalent to 250,000 Nagasaki bombs.
At the Uranium Weapons Conference, a demonstration
by British-trained oncologist Dr. Jawad Al-Ali showed photographs
of the kinds of birth deformities and tumors he had observed at
the Saddam Teaching Hospital in Basra just before the 2003 war.
Cancer rates had increased dramatically over the previous fifteen
years. In 1989, there were 11 abnormalities per 100,000 births;
in 2001, there were 116 per 100,000-an increase of over 1,000
percent. In 1989, 34 people died of cancer; in 2001, there were
603 cancer deaths. The 2003 war has increased these figures exponentially.
At a meeting of the International Criminal
Tribunal for Afghanistan held in December of 2003 in Tokyo, the
U.S. was indicted for multiple war crimes in Afghanistan, among
them the use of DU. Leuren Moret, president of Scientists for
Indigenous People and environmental commissioner for the city
of Berkeley, testified that because radioactive contaminants from
uranium weapons travel through air, water, and food sources, the
effects of U.S. deployment in Afghanistan will be felt in Iran,
Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, China, and India. Countries affected by the use of
uranium weapons in Iraq include Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon,
Palestine, Israel, Turkey, and Iran.
The Destabilization of Haiti
On February 29, 2004, President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide was forced into exile by American military. While the
Bush Administration and the corporate press implied that Aristide
left willingly, Aristide was able to give a detailed account of
his kidnapping by the American military to a Haitian journalist
in the United States via cell phone, who in turn, broadcast his
speech on Pacifica Radio's Flashpoints on KPFA. While the U.S.
was forced to acknowledge the kidnapping allegations, they were
quick to discredit them and deny responsibility. The circumstances
underlying the current situation in Haiti, as well as the history
of U.S. involvement, is being ignored by U.S. officials and mainstream
In 1990, after the brutal 15-year rule
of dictator "Baby Doc" Duvalier, 70 percent of Haiti's
people voted for Aristide in their first democratic election.
During his first term, Aristide began to make good on his populist
platform, revising the tax code to require import fees and income-based
taxation on the rich and pressing for an increase in the minimum
wage. He was, however, soon under pressure from International
Financial Institutions (IFIs) and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) to reverse these proposals. A few months later,
Aristide was overthrown by the rebel paramilitary army known as
the Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH). FRAPH
had been trained and sponsored by the CIA. In fact, several FRAPH
leaders were on the CIA payroll.
During the coup period, from 1991-1994,
Aristide's 1990 presidential opponent, former World Bank official
Marc Bazin, was appointed prime minister by the military junta,
and the exploitation and terrorization of the country continued
as it had during the Duvalier period. Under Bazin, 4,000 civilians
were executed, and more than 60,000 refugees fled. It was in this
context of CIA-supported FRAPH killings that Bazin became a poster
boy for World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and Washington
With the help of the Clinton Administration,
Aristide returned to his position as president of Haiti in 1994.
His return was conditional, based on his support of IMF and World
Bank proposals implemented during his years in exile. During that
time, Haiti had racked up huge amounts of external debt and was
forced to turn to the IMF and World Bank for loans. In response,
the IMF formed the "Economic Recovery Program." Supposedly
intended to help Haiti get back on its feet, the program instead
imposed a budget reform program that reduced the size of Haiti's
civil service and ultimately led to the collapse of Haiti's state
system. Aristide served until the end of his presidential term
Aristide was reelected in Haiti's 2000
presidential elections, the same year that George W. Bush entered
office. Aristide won with 92 percent of the vote in an election
declared free and fair by the Organization of American States
(OAS), of which the U.S. is a member. However, shortly after Bush's
own tainted election, his administration questioned the election
of seven senators from Aristide's Fanmi Lavalas party. Despite
the resignation of the senators, the Bush Administration used
these inflated allegations to justify the withdrawal of $512 million
in InterAmerican Development Bank loans to Haiti. The Administration
pressured the World Bank, the IMF, and the European Union to follow
with reduction of other planned assistance.
While obstructing aid and loans, the U.S.
spent millions to fund the "Democratic Platform of Civil
Society Organizations and Opposition Political Parties."
The Democratic Platform, developed by the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) and funded by the International Republican Institute,
combines the "Democratic Convergence" (DC) and "The
Group of 184 Civil Society Organizations" (G-184) in
opposition to the Aristide's government.
The DC consists of 200 small political organizations ranging from
Maoists to free-market liberals and ultra-right-wing Duvalierists,
who refuse participation in electoral processes and who are responsible
for violent attacks on the Haitian government. The G-184 is a
group of civil society organizations headed by Andre Apaid, U.S.
citizen and owner of Alpha Industries, one of Haiti's largest
cheap labor exporters producing for a number of U.S. firms including
IBM, Sperry/Unisys, Remington, and Honeywell.
Following the forced removal of Aristide,
the National Liberation and Reconstruction Front, the new paramilitary
group comprised of former FRAPH members, is now collaborating
with the Democratic Platform in the form of neoliberal structural
adjustment. Their intent is to assist "civilian" political
parties and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with the installation
of American style democracy/corporate domination. Incidentally,
NED also provided funds to the "Democratic Coordination,"
another "civil society organization" based in Venezuela,
which initiated the attempted coup against President Hugo Chavez.
These opposition groups, funded, trained,
and supplied by U.S. forces, are waging a Contra-style war against
Haiti. The new government, led by Interim Prime Minister Gerard
Latortue, is made up of human rights criminals, drug dealers,
and thugs involved in the 1990 and 2004 insurrections. A consistent
and systematic campaign of terror and violence is being carried
out by the likes of Guy Philippe, Louis Jodel Chamblain, and Jean
Tatoune. Philippe, a drug dealer and former police chief, plucked
from the Haitian army to be specially trained by U.S. forces in
Ecuador, organized the Haitian opposition from the Dominican Republic
where he was required to check in with the CIA two to three times
a month. Chamblain, former number-two man in FRAPH, sentenced
twice for murder and convicted in the 1994 Raboteau massacre and
in the 1993 assassination of democracy-activist Antoine Izmery,
joins Philippe to lead seminars on "democratic" opposition
with machine guns slung over their shoulders. Tatoune, another
FRAPH leader also convicted of massacre in Raboteau and identified
by victims as having shot several civilians, arrived in an U.S.
helicopter to stand next to the de facto prime minister as a "freedom
While Haiti's economy was bankrupted by
IMF reforms, the narcotics transshipment trade still thrives.
As the hub of Caribbean drug traffic, important in the transport
of cocaine from Colombia to the U.S., Haiti is responsible for
an estimated 14 percent of all cocaine entering the U.S. The CIA
protected this trade during the Duvalier era as well as during
the military dictatorship of 1991-1994. The money from the drug
transshipment trade flows out of Haiti to criminal intermediaries
in the wholesale and retail trade, to the intelligence agencies,
which protect the trade, and to the financial and banking institutions
where the proceeds are laundered. Wall Street and European banks
have a vested interest in installing "democracy" in
order to protect investment in Haiti's transshipment trade routes.
Since Bush Sr.'s presidency, the U.S.
has worked hard to forge an opposition against Aristide and his
administration. This opposition has been fueled by Aristide's
refusal to privatize Haiti's public enterprises and his increase
of the minimum wage. When Aristide returned to Haiti in 1994,
U.S. officials expected that many of its public enterprises (the
telephone company, electrical company, airport, port, three banks,
a cement factory, and a flour mill) would be sold to private corporations,
preferably U.S. multinationals working in partnership with the
Haitian elite. Aristide refused, prompting the withdrawal of $500
million in promised international aid. In February 2003, Aristide
moved, again against strong opposition from the business sector,
to double the minimum wage. This increase affected more than 20,000
assembly line workers contracted by corporations such as Disney
Haiti's government worked for alternatives
to neoliberal development, corporate domination, and essentially
U.S. hegemony, joining with the Caribbean Community (CARICOM)
to form a trade bloc against the Free Trade Area of the Americas
(FTAA) and other initiatives. They established cooperative projects
with Venezuela and Cuba, securing regular shipments of oil from
Venezuela at very reduced prices and substantial medical assistance
from Cuba. CARICOM has called for an investigation into the abduction
of President Aristide, and President Hugo Chavez has offered Aristide
asylum in Venezuela. After two weeks exile in the Central African
Republic, Aristide has been granted temporary asylum in Jamaica,
only about 130 miles from Haiti.
Media and Government Ignore Dwindling
If the former industry executives, geologists,
and statisticians in the Association for the Study of Peak Oil
(ASPO) are correct, oil may have already reached its highest levels
of production potential. But U.S. leaders and the mainstream media
refuse to acknowledge that we are headed for an inevitable oil
crisis with extreme consequences sure to impact every aspect of
our lives. As the peak is reached, oil prices will start to rise
(as they have every year since 2000). As the oil decline accelerates,
prices will rise even faster.
The problem is that our lives have become
hard-wired to the oil economy. Oil powers the machinery of modern
society and lubricates its engines. Materials need to be transported,
and companies need working people to make them. Workers in turn
need to run a car, pay for electricity to heat their house, and
buy food (that is packaged in plastic). High transportation prices
mean high food prices. Oil is the main ingredient in plastics
and polyester: the clothes we wear, the carpets we walk on, the
frames for our computers, the seats we sit on, the bottles we
drink from, and the band-aids that salve our wounds. Who will
be able to afford them as the price of oil starts to rise? What
will replace them? This story isn't about the end of oil as it
is often portrayed; it is the beginning of the end of oil. But
this still means a paradigmatic shift at a level not seen since
the Industrial Revolution.
Our government has yet to begin diversifying
our energy. Head of the energy investment bank Simmons & Co.
International, Matthew Simmons said, "I am an advisor to
the Bush Administration-although I'm not sure they are listening.
What I basically told them is that we had some looming energy
problems: that we were barreling into a really nasty energy crisis.
We need a new energy." But a viable alternative has yet to
be developed. These economic problems will be exacerbated by the
direct connection between the price of oil and the rate of unemployment.
The last five recessions in the U.S. were all preceded by a rise
in the oil price.
Alternative energy, such as hydrogen,
which President Bush mentioned in his State of the Union speech
in January of 2004, has its own complexities and system requirements.
Hydrogen, natural gas, biodiesel, and nuclear energy sources are
all considered alternative fuels. Wind and solar power are considered
renewable energy resources. The viability of these options depends
directly on how we plan to implement them.
The only rational response to both the
impending end of the oil age and the menace of global warming
is to redesign our cities, our farming, and our lives. But this
will not happen without massive political pressure, and our problem
is that no one ever rioted for austerity. People tend to take
to the streets because they want to consume more, not less.
Forcing a World Market for GMOs
The Bush Administration, backed by the
biotech industry, intends to force the European Union (EU) to
drop trade barriers against genetically modified organisms (GM
Os). Their claim is that such a trade barrier is illegal under
World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and that the distribution
of GMOs is a necessary part of the campaign to end world hunger.
However, the reason behind U.S. governmental support for GMOs
may have more to do with heavy lobbying, campaign contributions,
and the close relationships between government agencies and biotech
companies than actual science and the war against hunger. U.S.
industry loses some $300 million a year of possible GMO exports
to the EU. Biotechnology promoters like Monsanto and agri-business
have strenuously lobbied the administration to bring a formal
WTO case against the EU while suppressing studies that show GMOs
may have adverse effects on health and the environment.
The connections between biotech companies
and U.S. regulatory agencies are deep. According to <globalinfo.org>,
Ann Veneman, U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary, used to
serve on the board of Calgene, the company that brought us the
biotech tomato. She also used to head Agracetus, a subsidiary
of Monsanto. In another example of the "revolving door"
between biotech companies and regulatory agencies, the person
who wrote the GMO regulations for the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) was a lawyer who "previously" represented biotech
giant Monsanto. After writing the FDA legislation, the lawyer
returned to work for Monsanto.
Another factor that has powerfully influenced
the growth of the GMO industry throughout the world is the link
between international development organizations (such as the World
Bank) and the biotech industry. Under an approved "staff
exchange program" the World Bank trades its employees with
employees from companies like Dow, ARD, and Aventis. There are
also exchanges with academic institutions, governments, and UN
development agencies. One startling example involves Eija Pehu,
a senior scientist with the World Bank's department of agriculture
and rural development. The former president of a Finnish biotech
company, Pehu is also listed as a board member for the International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA),
an influential lobbying organization whose funding comes from
companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, and Bayer. The ISAAA's objective
is "the transfer and delivery of appropriate biotechnology
applications to developing countries." They have successfully
pursued this program with projects in at least 12 developing nations.
The U.S. has a history of attempting to
push GMOs on developing nations through the use of food aid. Yet,
despite enormous pressure and Washington PR campaigns, Zambia,
Zimbabwe, and Mozambique have turned down shipments of U.S. GMO
aid because of health and environmental concerns. Ronnie Cummins,
national director of Organic Consumers, says the real aim of the
United States is to frighten poor developing nations into complying
and opening their markets for controversial products. But while
GMO companies continue to open new markets abroad, the jury is
still out on whether or not their products are likely to provide
any real benefits. Controversy and scandal surround the biotech
industry and charges that it manipulates the results of research
performed on GMOs. Biotech companies create relationships with
universities that conduct research on their products by providing
sorely needed funding for university research departments. (Over
the last three decades, funding provided to U.S. universities
by the industrial sector grew faster than any other source.) Researchers
who have come forward with evidence showing that GMOs can be harmful
claim they have experienced pressure from university research
alliances to alter results. Some assert that the priorities of
private sponsors influence what should have been impartial findings.
One researcher who found less than desirable results, and discussed
them publicly, had the misfortune of being blacklisted and the
target of a powerful GMO PR campaign to discredit his work. In
1998, Arpad Pusztai, a scientist at the Rowett Research Institute
in Aberdeen, Scotland discovered that genetically modified potatoes
caused inflammations and tumors in the lining of stomachs of lab
rodents. After publishing his story, his home was burglarized,
his research was stolen, he lost his job at Rowett after 30 years
of employment, and he was maligned by the Royal Medical Society
(after his research was published in the reputable scientific
journal Lancet). This story was Censored #7 in 2001.
The European Union denies that it has
enacted a trade moratorium and says it simply needed more time
to develop systems for tracing and labeling GM foods and feed.
However, even if the EU were to abide by the WTO's rules, "there
is no way in hell they can force the European consumers, supermarkets,
or farmers to stock GMO tainted crops," says Ronnie Cummins.
Meanwhile, the anti-GMO movement in the
United States is rapidly gaining steam. In March 2004, Mendocino,
California became the first county in the U.S. to ban the growing
of genetically modified crops and animals.
Brazil Holds Back in FTAA Talks, But Provides
Little Comfort for / the Poor of South America
The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA)
could become the biggest trading block in history, expanding NAFTA
to 34 countries from Canada to the bottom of South America. This
deal is unlikely to meet its January 2005 deadline, now that the
second largest player in the negotiations, Brazil, is holding
back. Brazil played an important part in the November 2003 Cancun
WTO meeting. Led by President Lula, a 20-country coalition that
opposed the agenda of the northern countries caused the meeting
to end abruptly and collapse.
The United States has reacted swiftly
by making bilateral agreements with individual Central and South
American countries and threatening to restrict their access to
U.S. markets if they refuse to cooperate. In many cases, these
poorer countries have no choice but to agree to the very strict
and unfair agreements that the United States demands. Countries
such as Peru, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Colombia, Ecuador,
and many other Central American nations involved in the FTAA want
access to U.S. markets, even if it means relaxing antitrust laws
and workers' rights. This tactic of coercing countries one by
one has, so far, been successful in isolating Brazil from building
coalitions with neighboring countries. Brazil is the fifth largest
nation in the world, both in size and population. Boasting a consumer
market of 182 million people, the United States desperately wants
Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva,
the president of Brazil, has taken a very anti-Washington stance
in the recent talks on the FTAA. All 34 countries had demands
put upon them in a two-tier system. Because the United States
and Brazil both sit comfortably in the top tier, they are able
to opt out of any negotiations not favorable to them. This has
allowed the United States to keep its farm subsidies, which is
the only way the U.S. sugar industry can compete with the largest
sugar exporter in the world, Brazil. In return, Brazil is not
obligated to open up any of its service industry and government
contracts to foreign competition.
Because NAFTA did little to stop jobs
in Mexico from going overseas, particularly to China, where wages
and operating costs are even cheaper than Mexico, Brazilian politicians
are very hesitant to sign up for Washington's latest economic
plan. A poll by the University of Miami indicated that 76 percent
of Latin American business people, journalists, academics, and
government officials believe that the FTAA plan would benefit
the United States and not Brazil. This is one reason President
Lula is staying away from the VI'AA and bolstering talks abroad
with India and China that focus on technology and natural resources.
Reinstating the Draft
The Selective Service System (SSS), the
Bush Administration, and the Pentagon have been quietly moving
to fill draft board vacancies nationwide in order to prepare for
a military draft that could start as early as June 15, 2005. In
preparation, several million dollars have been added to the 2004
SSS budget. The SSS Administration must report to Bush on March
31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for decades,
is ready for activation. The Pentagon has quietly begun a public
campaign to fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070 appeals
board slots nationwide. An unpopular election year topic, military
experts and influential members of Congress are suggesting that
if Rumsfeld's prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq
and Afghanistan (and a permanent state of war on terrorism) proves
accurate, the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.
Congress brought twin bills 5. 89 and
H.R. 163 forward in 2003, introduced by Representative Charles
Rangel (D-NY) and Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SQ. Entitled the Universal
National Service Act of 2003, their aim is "to provide for
the common defense by requiring that all young persons (age 18-26)
in the United States, including women, perform a period of military
service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the
national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."
These active bills currently sit in the Committee on Armed Services.
Dodging the draft will be more difficult
than those from the Vietnam era remember. College and Canada will
no longer be options. In December 2001, Canada and the U.S. signed
a "Smart Border Declaration," which could be used to
contain would-be draft dodgers. The declaration involves a 30-point
plan that implements, among other things, a "pre-clearance
agreement" of people entering and departing each country.
Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along gender
and class lines also eliminate higher education as a shelter.
Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the
end of their current semester. Seniors would have until the end
of the academic year.
In May 2000, Delaware was the first state
to enact legislation requiring that driver's license information
be sent to the SSS. By August 2003, 32 states, two territories,
and the District of Columbia followed suit. Noncompliance with
sending information to the SSS has always been punishable by up
to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Up to now, the government
has never acted on these measures, but levied punishment would
bar violators from federal employment and student loans. The SSS
has altered its Web site at <www.sss.gov> to include a front-page
denial of a draft resurrection, but continues to post the twenty-four
page Annual Performance Plan, which includes its June 15 deadline
In addition to the possibility of a draft,
the continual recruitment of Latinos into the armed forces has
been creating volatile reactions from antirecruitment advocates.
The target recruitment of Latinos began during Clinton's tenure
in office. Louis Caldera, then secretary of the army, was able
to discern that Latinos were the fastest growing group of military-age
individuals in the United States. In May of 2003, the military
was involved in a diplomatic dispute when recruiters made their
way across the border. The headmaster of a Tijuana high school
threw out the recruiter, and the Mexican government was vehemently
upset. The Pentagon has preyed on the fact that Latinos and Latinas
often enter the military in search of "civilian skills"
they can apply in the workforce.
In 2001, Department of Defense (DOD) statistics
showed that while 10 percent of military forces are comprised
of Latinos, 17.7 percent of this group occupies "frontline
positions." This includes "infantry, gun crews, and
seamanship." With the army's continual banter about educational
subsidies of up to $30,000 for college and completion of GED requirements,
the "glitz and glamour" of the military has enhanced
misconceptions about the nature of military service for Latinos.
Charles Pena, director of defense studies
at the libertarian Cato Institute presents a comparable conflict
between the United States and the Middle East and the British
and Northern Ireland where the occupying army encountered hostile
opposition amongst civilian populations. In that situation, the
occupying army needed a ratio of 10 or 20 soldiers per 1,000 civilians;
"...If you transfer that to Iraq, it would mean you'd need
at least 240,000 troops and maybe as many as 480,000." With
no sign of retreat or resolution and every indication of increasing
opposition in locations occupied by troops, it will likely be
deemed necessary to increase and maintain military presence. Additionally,
there is the massive exodus of ally troops and aid from positions
of occupation and combat. The U.S. has been unable to draw major
assistance from other countries, and high enlistment bonuses have
been both ineffective and expensive in light of rapidly growing
debt. Add to the growing list of unfavorable realities an unwillingness
of soldiers to re-enlist, and the U.S. is unable to meet the soldier
quotient needed to continue occupation of Iraq alone. Exacerbating
this dilemma is the probability of expanding occupation and the
White House promise of war in Multiple theaters.